XML 25 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | 7. Commitments and Contingencies Oregon Health & Science University (“OHSU”) Agreement On February 20, 2013, Fennec entered into a new exclusive license agreement with OHSU for exclusive worldwide license rights to intellectual property directed to thiol-based compounds, including PEDMARK® and their use in oncology (the "OHSU Agreement"). OHSU will receive certain milestone payments, royalty on net sales for licensed products and a royalty on any consideration received from sublicensing of the licensed technology. On May 18, 2015, Fennec negotiated an amendment ("Amendment 1") to the OHSU Agreement, which expands Fennec's exclusive license to include the use of N-acetylcysteine as a standalone therapy and/or in combination with PEDMARK® for the prevention of ototoxicity induced by chemotherapeutic agents to treat cancers. Further, Amendment 1 adjusts select milestone payments entered in the OHSU Agreement including but not limited to the royalty rate on net sales for licensed products, royalty rate from sublicensing of the licensed technology and the fee payable upon the regulatory approval of a licensed product. Certain milestone payments are due upon FDA approval and achievement of sufficient positive EBITDA over a specified period. PEDMARK® received FDA approval in September 2022, however at this time, due to significant uncertainty surrounding timing and magnitude of certain milestones, the Company has only recorded a royalty liability associated with net revenue. The term of the OHSU Agreement as amended by Amendment 1 expires on the date of the last to expire claim(s) covered in the patents licensed to Fennec or 8 years, whichever is later. The Company now has a licensed product with regulatory approval that is covered by the Orphan Drug Designation, the parties amended the term of the agreement. Sodium thiosulfate is currently protected by methods of use patents that the Company exclusively licensed from OHSU that expired in Europe in 2021 and that expire in the United States in 2038. The OHSU Agreement is terminable by either Fennec or OHSU in the event of a material breach of the agreement by either party after 45 days prior written notice. Fennec also has the right to terminate the OHSU Agreement at any time upon 60 days prior written notice and payment of all fees due to OHSU under the OHSU Agreement. The Company had accrued approximately $15 (1% net sales) in royalty expense to OHSU at December 31, 2022. Leases We have an operating lease in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina utilizing small space within a commercial building. The operating lease has payments of $0.4 per month with no scheduled increases. This operating lease is terminable with 30 days’ notice and has no penalties or contingent payments due. ​ On January 23, 2020, the Company entered into an Office Service Agreement (the “Office Service Agreement”) with Regus to lease office space at in Hoboken, New Jersey. Per the terms of the Office Service Agreement, the monthly rent payments are $1. The Company was required to pay a security deposit of $2, which is the equivalent to two months of rent. The Office Service Agreement commenced on January 27, 2020, and terminates on July 31, 2020, thereafter the lease may continue on a month-to-month basis with either party being able to terminate the agreement by providing one months’ advance written notice of termination. Securities Class Action Suit Chapman v. Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. On September 3, 2020, plaintiff Jim Chapman filed a putative federal securities class action lawsuit against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, Rostislav Raykov, and Chief Financial Officer, Robert Andrade, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Chapman v. Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00812. The complaint alleged that prior to our August 10, 2020 receipt of a CRL from the FDA concerning our NDA for PEDMARK®, defendants made materially false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our third-party PEDMARK® product manufacturing facility and the impact the facility would have on regulatory approval for PEDMARK®. On December 3, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff to represent the putative class. On February 1, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint added members of our Board of Directors as defendants, asserts a putative class period from December 20, 2018 through August 10, 2020, makes allegations similar to those in the original complaint, claims the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 3, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 2, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On April 16, 2021, defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss, and on December 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered an order recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in its entirety. On January 24, 2022, lead plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, and defendants filed their response on February 3, 2022. On March 2, 2022, the U.S. District Court Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s order and recommendation and entered an order and judgment dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. On March 30, 2022, lead plaintiff filed a motion for post judgment relief, seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. In his proposed second amended complaint, lead plaintiff seeks to add allegations stemming from the receipt of a second CRL following our resubmission of our NDA for PEDMARK®, which we received on November 29, 2021, among other things. Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for post judgment relief on April 20, 2022. On May 4, 2022, lead plaintiff submitted a reply in support of his motion. On September 27, 2022, defendants filed a request for judicial notice regarding the FDA’s press release announcing that it has approved PEDMARK®. On October 18, 2022, lead plaintiff filed his opposition to request for judicial notice. On October 21, 2022, defendants filed a reply in support of the request for judicial notice. On February 15, 2023, the Magistrate Judge recommended the motion for post judgment relief be denied. Lead plaintiff filed no timely objection to the recommendation, and on March 2, 2023, the U.S. District Court Judge issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, denying the motion for post judgment relief, and entering judgment for defendants. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. Failure by us to obtain a favorable resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. We have not recorded a liability as of December 31, 2022, because we believe a potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the nature of the proceedings and our success so far by obtaining a dismissal with prejudice of the amended complaint. Fisher v. Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. On February 9, 2022, plaintiff Jeffrey D. Fisher filed a putative federal securities class action lawsuit against the Company and our CEO and CFO in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Fisher v. Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00115. The complaint asserts a putative class period from May 28, 2021 through November 28, 2021, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the status of our third-party PEDMARK® product manufacturing facility, the facility’s compliance with cGMP, and the impact its status and compliance would have on regulatory approval for PEDMARK® in the period leading up to the Company’s November 29, 2021 receipt of a CRL for a subsequent NDA for PEDMARK®. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 11, 2022, plaintiff Jeffrey D. Fisher filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and represent the putative class and on May 9, 2022, the court appointed him as lead plaintiff. On June 23, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserts the same putative class period from May 28, 2021 through November 28, 2021, is brought against the same defendants and makes allegations similar to those in the original complaint. On August 5, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 26, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On September 9, 2022, defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss. On September 27, 2022, defendants filed a request for judicial notice regarding the FDA’s press release announcing that it approved PEDMARK® On September 30, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the request for judicial notice. On October 6, 2022, defendants filed a reply in support of the request for judicial notice. On October 12, 2022, the U.S. District Court Judge issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, and on October 14, 2022, entered judgment. Lead plaintiff had until November 14, 2022 to file a notice of appeal and did not file a notice of appeal. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. Failure by us to obtain a favorable resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. We have not recorded a liability as of December 31, 2022, because we believe a potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the nature of the proceedings and our success so far by obtaining a dismissal with prejudice of the amended complaint. ​ Hope Medical Enterprises, Inc. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Challenges On October 29, 2021, Hope Medical Enterprises, Inc. (“Hope”) filed two petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the USPTO. In its petitions, Hope seeks to invalidate our U.S. Patent No. 10,596,190 (“US ‘190 Patent”), which is exclusively in-licensed from Oregon Health & Science University (“OHSU”) and relates to a method of using our PEDMARK® product, and our U.S. Patent No. 10,792,363 (“US ’363 Patent”), which relates to an anhydrous form of STS and its method of manufacture, which is the active pharmaceutical ingredient in our PEDMARK® product. The US ‘190 Patent was issued on March 24, 2020. The US ‘363 Patent was issued on October 6, 2020. On January 11, 2022, OHSU filed a Request for Supplemental Examination of US ‘190 Patent (Control No. 96.000,390) requesting the consideration by the Central Re-examination Unit (“CRU”) of the USPTO of certain prior art references, including references cited by Hope in its Petition for IPR that are relevant to the granted claim of the patent. On January 28, 2022, the CRU issued a Supplemental Examination Certificate, identified a Substantial New Question (“SNQ”) on the patentability of the US ‘190 Patent claims, and ordered a Reexamination of US ‘190 Patent on March 9, 2022. On May 9, the PTAB granted Hope Medical’s Petition to Institute the IPR against the US ‘190 Patent and a stayed the US ‘190 Patent Reexamination pending the result of the US ‘190 Patent IPR. On August 12, 2022, OHSU filed a Motion to Amend the single claim of the US ‘190 Patent in the IPR to focus on the treatment of medulloblastoma. On December 5, 2022, OHSU filed a Revised Motion to Amend the single claim of the US ‘190 Patent. We expect a decision in the ‘190 Patent IPR in May 2023, which can be appealed by the losing party. Further, in May 2022, the PTAB granted Hope Medical’s Petition to Institute the IPR against the ‘363 Patent. During the ‘363 Patent IPR, we disclaimed the ‘363 Patent claims directed to the anhydrous morphic form of STS, and filed a Motion to Amend the remaining method of manufacture claims. On December 14, 2022, we filed a Revised Motion to Amend the remaining claims in the ‘363 Patent. We expect a decision in the ‘363 IPR in May 2023, which can be appealed by the losing party. We plan to vigorously defend our intellectual property rights related to PEDMARK®. However, we are unable to predict the outcome of Hope’s IPR petitions, or the Reexamination. While we now have, or will shortly receive, additional U.S. patents that cover PEDMARK® over the IPR challenged patents, an invalidation of our patents covering PEDMARK® could have a material adverse effect on our ability to protect our rights in PEDMARK® beyond periods of marketing exclusivity for PEDMARK® possible in the United States under Orphan Drug Designation and in Europe under European Market Exclusivity for Pediatric Use (“PUMA”). CIPLA ANDA Litigation On December 1, 2022, we received a letter dated November 30, 2022, notifying us that CIPLA Ltd. and CIPLA USA (“CIPLA”) submitted to the FDA an ANDA (ANDA No. 218028) for a generic version of PEDMARK® (sodium thiosulfate solution) that contains Paragraph IV Certifications on two of our patents covering PEDMARK®: the OHSU licensed US ‘190 Patent, expiration date January 2038; and our US 11,291,728 Patent, expiration date July 2039. On January 6, 2023, we received a letter dated January 5, 2023, notifying us that CIPLA submitted to the FDA a Paragraph IV Certification on our newly issued US 11,510,984 Patent. These patents are listed in FDA’s list of Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly referred to as the Orange Book, for PEDMARK®. The certifications allege these patents are invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of CIPLA’s sodium thiosulfate solution. Under the Food and Drug Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended, after receipt of a valid Paragraph IV notice, the Company may bring a patent infringement suit in a federal district court against CIPLA within 45 days from the receipt of the Notice Letter and if such a suit is commenced within the 45-day period, the Company is entitled to a 30 month stay on the FDA’s ability to give final approval to any proposed products that reference PEDMARK®. In addition to the 30-month stay, because we have received Orphan Drug Exclusivity, the FDA may not approve CIPLA’s ANDA for at least 7 years from PEDMARK®’s FDA approval date of September 20, 2022. On January 10, 2023, we filed suit against the CIPLA entities in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 3:23-cv-00123), for infringement of the ‘190 Patent and the ‘728 Patent. The suit is ongoing. Executive Severance In the event of his termination with us other than for cause, we will be obligated to pay Mr. Raykov a one-time severance payment equal to twelve months of salary (currently $513). In the event of his termination with us other than for cause, we will be obligated to pay Mr. Andrade a one-time severance payment equal to six months of salary (currently $ 186). ​ Employee Benefit Plan In May 2021, the Company established the Fennec Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “401(k) Plan”) for its employees, which is designed to be qualified under Section 401(k) of the Code. Eligible employees are permitted to contribute to the 401(k) Plan within statutory and 401(k) Plan limits. As of December 31, 2022 the Company does not offer matching contributions.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration